completely worthwhile entertainment

Rating: 8/10 (6 November 2004)

28 Days Later is about a virus (RAGE) that spreads throughout Great Britain and affects people by turning them into desperate, ravenous, zombie-like monsters. Their eyes turn red, and they scream and growl as they try to rip apart any non-infected humans they can find. The main character of the film, Jim (played by Cillian Murphy), awakens in a quiet hospital 28 days after the virus is accidentally released by animal rights activists who were trying to free chimpanzee test subjects infected with the RAGE virus. The hospital, along with the rest of London, is seemingly deserted as Jim wanders aimlessly through the empty streets. Extremely similar to the opening of Vanilla Sky, this scene is perfect in creating the empty lonesome tone of the first act. The movie follows Jim as he journeys to not only find safety, but to understand what has happened to everyone he once knew and loved. I was left with one big question. If everyone infected turns into one of the 'zombies,' where was everyone??
Right away, I realized that no one was safe in this story. You can't assume that the characters you love will live and the ones you hate will die. One thing I really liked was that once infected, the virus would take hold of a person within seconds. This took out the traditional moments of 'Oh no, so and so is infected and no one knows  I guess we'll watch the virus slowly develop over the length of the film while building a very cheap, overused, yet somewhat effective bit of suspense.' I liked the fact that if someone was infected, you had better kill them sooner than later  or risk them turning on you. Another thing I really liked about the 'zombies' is that they do not stalk their victims by sluggishly pursuing them with a long drawn out groan. These guys are fast! They dash towards their prey while screaming and vomiting blood. It really is gruesome.
Speaking of gruesome, this film very much feels at times like the 'B Movies' it has borrowed from. The gore is over the top and the picture quality of the movie is really poor since it was filmed on digital video. I don't know if it was done solely for purposes of budget, or just to create a low budget gritty feel, but I can't help but wonder if it would have come across more clearly had they shot on traditional film and spared us the halo ridden blur of pixels void of any sort of detail. Then again, the movie may not have worked at all had it been shot differently. It is interesting to note that the final shots of the movie were shot on film. This is clearly significant, but to keep the review clean of spoilers I will say no more.
The all British cast did a fine job. The only actor I was familiar with was Brendan Gleeson who was very good as expected. The other actors may be well known in the UK, but they are all unknown in my mind, and they all did very nice work.
I have a new respect for director Danny Boyle. Some of the shots in this movie are downright terrifying, while others are absolutely breathtaking. The entire post-virus Britain is brilliantly realized, and some of the images will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. I don't think the filmmakers were trying to make any statements about SARS, nor were they trying to draw any other real world parallels, but it is hard not to become just a little more paranoid after having seen the film. Sure it's preposterous that a virus would turn a normal human being into some terribly violent and hopeless monster full of despair and a lust for human blood, but it does make for a suspenseful and at times shocking movie that horror fans deserve after putting up with the dreck that they usually have to settle with. (Now that was a long sentence.) It isn't the scariest movie ever, but it was a Kevin Costner cameo away from being close.